Multiattribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents

In this paper, the problem of selecting from among a set of alternatives using multiple, potentially conflicting criteria is discussed. A number of approaches are commonly used to make these types of decisions in engineering design, including pair-wise comparisons, ranking methods, rating methods, weighted sum approaches, and strength of preferences methods. In this paper, we first demonstrate the theoretical and practical flaws with a number of these commonly employed methods. We then present a method based on the concept of hypothetical equivalents and expand the method to include hypothetical inequivalents. We demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the various decision making approaches using an aircraft selection problem. The design of a research laboratory is used to demonstrate the method of hypothetical equivalents further.Copyright © 2002 by ASME

[1]  R. Ramanathan,et al.  Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages , 1994 .

[2]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[3]  Bowon Kim,et al.  Exercises on Tradeoffs and Conflicting Objectives , 1996 .

[4]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[5]  Hans Peters,et al.  Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences , 1991 .

[6]  Lesley Davis,et al.  Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[7]  R. Keeney.  A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility , 1976 .

[8]  Garret N. Vanderplaats,et al.  Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design , 1999 .

[9]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[10]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[11]  E. Antonsson,et al.  USING INDIFFERENCE POINTS IN ENGINEERING DECISIONS , 2000 .

[12]  Achille Messac,et al.  From the dubious art of constructing objective functions to the application of physical programming , 1996 .

[13]  Shuichi Fukuda,et al.  Prioritizing the customer's requirements by AHP for concurrent design , 1993 .

[14]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes: II. Positional Voting , 1999 .

[15]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A 2-Phase Aspiration-Level and Utility Theory Approach to Large Scale Design , 2000 .

[16]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process , 1993 .

[17]  Sr Watson,et al.  Assesing Attribute Weights , 1982 .

[18]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[19]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[20]  D. Littler.  Design and Marketing of New Products , 1981 .

[21]  Wei Chen,et al.  An approach to decision-based design. , 2001 .

[22]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes , 1991 .

[23]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[24]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .